[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:18:02 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] security: Yama LSM
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 02:17 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This adds the Yama Linux Security Module to collect DAC security
>> improvements (specifically just ptrace restrictions for now) that have
>> existed in various forms over the years and have been carried outside the
>> mainline kernel by other Linux distributions like Openwall and grsecurity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> This is looking really good. I have a few notes inlined below but I didn't
> find any problems.
>
> I am happy giving it an
> Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Thanks for the review!
>> +/**
>> + * yama_ptracer_add - add/replace an exception for this tracer/tracee pair
>> + * @tracer: the task_struct of the process doing the ptrace
>> + * @tracee: the task_struct of the process to be ptraced
>> + *
>> + * Returns 0 if relationship was added, -ve on error.
>> + */
> It might be good to add a note here, or a more explicit note in the Yama
> Documentation that a tracee can only have a single tracer (+ its descendants).
Good idea; I've added a note in both places now.
>> +static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>> + struct task_struct *tracee)
>> +{
>> + int rc = 0;
>> + struct ptrace_relation *added;
>> + struct ptrace_relation *entry, *relation = NULL;
>> +
>> + added = kmalloc(sizeof(*added), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(entry, &ptracer_relations, node)
>> + if (entry->tracee == tracee) {
>> + relation = entry;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + if (!relation) {
>> + relation = added;
>> + if (!relation) {
>> + rc = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto unlock_out;
>> + }
>> + relation->tracee = tracee;
>> + list_add(&relation->node, &ptracer_relations);
>> + }
>> + relation->tracer = tracer;
>> +
>> +unlock_out:
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> + if (added && added != relation)
>> + kfree(added);
>> +
>> + return rc;
>> +}
>> +
> I think pulling the out of the locking makes the fn a little easier to
> read.
Agreed, I've done this now. I think my original thought was "why check
'added' unless we actually need it?" But it just makes the whole thing
harder to read.
>> + spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> + list_for_each_safe(list, safe, &ptracer_relations) {
>> + relation = list_entry(list, struct ptrace_relation, node);
> You could use list_for_each_entry_safe here
> list_for_each_entry_safe(relation, safe, &ptracer_relations, node)
Ah! Yes, thanks for catching this.
>> + * yama_task_prctl - check for Yama-specific prctl operations
>> + * @option: operation
>> + * @arg2: argument
>> + * @arg3: argument
>> + * @arg4: argument
>> + * @arg5: argument
>> + *
>> + * Return 0 on success, -ve on error. -ENOSYS is returned when Yama
>> + * does not handle the given option.
>> + */
> So maybe add a note here about why the tracee is being stored via the
> group_leader, but that the tracer isn't. Its not really a problem but I
> tripped over this at first as I was going through the code.
Yeah, dealing with when a thread might be calling these things lead to
some confusion. In the end, I have to check group_leader in a few
places, and this was a seemingly good place too. I might rework this a
bit, but in the meantime, I've added a comment explaining my
reasoning.
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
